netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v9] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zhet98MkJUQeAcFC@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:31:35 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
CC: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, <antony.antony@...unet.com>,
	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<devel@...ux-ipsec.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Eyal Birger
	<eyal.birger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v9] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 11/04/2024 à 09:22, Steffen Klassert a écrit :
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:37:27AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> >> Le 10/04/2024 à 10:17, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
> >> [snip]
> >>>> Why isn't it possible to restrict the use of an input SA to the input path and
> >>>> output SA to xmit path?
> >>>
> >>> Because nobody has written a patch for it yet :)
> >>>
> >> For me, it should be done in this patch/series ;-)
> > 
> > I tend to disagree here. Adding the direction as a lookup key
> > is IMO beyond the scope of this patch. That's complicated and
> > would defer this series by months. Given that the upcomming IPTFS
> > implementation has a lot of direction specific config options,
> > it makes sense to take that this patch now. Otherwise we have the
> > direction specific options in input and output states forever.
> I don't understand why the direction could not be mandatory and checked for new
> options only (offload, iptfs, etc.) and reject for legacy use cases.

Because every state has a direction and it should be marked explictly.
As said, IMO it should have been like that from the beginning.